I like that you are trying to get a handle on it rather than just complain.
I appreciate religion as relative in its quality. This means that there is something essentially very meaningful and essential for Man within it but, being beyond our reason, becomes completely abused and even turned into its opposite as with the Spanish Inquisition which of course has nothing to do with Christianity and only an expression of cruel gullibility.
First, what is the purpose of religion? Is it just an intellectual exercise that one chooses? Is its value primarily intellectual or emotional? Do we talk it or live it? If we live it, it must be given to the young or it loses its value. You will say that it results in intellectual repression and in many cases it can. Remember, I am saying that religion is relative and manifests as between being able to transmit the deepest most profound psychological truths of man or give the means to promote the greatest cruelty onto man. On one side you have the great wise men that must channel the thought of the young for their benefit away from useless imagination and on the other side you have the ego laden charlatan who corrupts and takes advantage through this same tendency and natural youthful weakness towards imagination.
So, does one choose a religion on an intellectual basis? This will appear strange now but if one can remain open, when the time is right, the teaching chooses you. Naturally this happens rarely and a person usually just falls into whatever path through conditioning
A true teaching doesn’t make it easy for you. In fact it is just the opposite. Naturally this will not go over well with the intellectual crowd that wants it on a silver platter.
I admire your dedication but am just saying that it may be more complex then just “education” when searching for pearls in manure It requires coming to grips with human nature and what people including ourselves really want.
This will also seem odd but: “Since we are as we are, everything is as it is.” Intellectual education cannot change this. This is why I introduced the idea of “HOW” to think. It is more than just being around those who you believe think they are thinking. Learning how to think is associated with first learning how not to be a continual slave to reaction. If we are always motivated to react for the same reasons our thoughts will always be on a similar level of understanding.
The ancients knew this and, for example, it is essential in Karma Yoga but how many understand it now? Does this resonate with you at all?
Now this is real religious education. We learn about ourselves. It is psychological and opening oneself to experience new data for which can be used in the future in our analysis. Our emotional valuations are set aside so we can see what makes us fight with someone rather than get continually lost in the continuing fights. Now it is believed that if someone tells you what to think and how to act, everything will turn out wonderful. Heh, heh, heh, fat chance. We are still motivated in the same way and once the novelty wears off, it is back to business as usual,
Learning “HOW” to think may not be as easy as it seems and even more complicated in reference to religion.
This is probably going to sound from off in right field but, how do you
teach a child to be good without addressing the metaphysical? Or do you
teach values only relatively? How can relative values be a basis for happiness?
As I recently read opined: “Any culture [worth it’s name] is both metaphysical and personal.”
I don’t believe anyone here is speaking against metaphysical teaching for a child, mrm. To the contrary, I think it is a summary agreement as a necessity.
What is contended is the timing, and societies pressures outside of that proper timing, which will be more individual opinion.
First of all, Religion instruction is only “Intellectual Repression” if the religion in question is false. You can convince a 6-year-old of anything. There is fundamentally no difference between the school teaching the truth of Christianity, and a brother ‘questioning her views’. They are both attempts to sculpt the child into what the authority thinks the child should be. In fact, ‘questioning her views’ is a bit misleading- a 6 year old has no ability to defend themselves from the kinds of questions you would raise, I’m sure. Even if Christianity were 100% true, and the Church was 100% pure and innocent of everything every accused of it, you could still easily convince a 6 year old it was a crock if you wanted to. Now…
Pensuave
Your particular views on religion and how they inform this view aside, what if the parents want the child to be a Christian, and to use the Bible to teach the child ethics? It seems to me that revering the parents and revering God are not so easily seperated in this case. I think that as it happens, a young child will happen to go through the motions of religious activity because they revere their parents, and not because they comprehend these things in themselves, but that’s all well and good.
The most impressionable part of their life will continue on until they’ve received some instruction or another in this matter. Even if they don’t hear word one about religion until their 30th birthday, they will be extremely impressionable to the first thing they hear, I should think.
But they think those other religions are false. More imporantly, they probably think those other religions are evil. Why in the world would you teach your 6-year-old false, evil things? For that matter, why would you give a 6 year old the freedom to [i]choose [/i] false, evil things? If you think that Christianity is true, and some other path leads to hell, you'd be a terrible parent to keep that to yourself.
No matter what YOU think of religious exclusivism, people who believe in it really believe in it. They are not thinking to themselves, "I think that Christianity is the only way because I am crazy/dumb/bad, and I want better for my kids." They are thinking "Christianity IS the only way, and so that's how my kids will be raised."
Finally, from what I see on the internet, teenagers really don't seem to have a problem abandoning the faith they were brought up with if they really want to. Is there really a crisis in America of teens not being rebellious enough? Sooner or later, your sister will reach a point where she can choose another path if she wants to. In the meantime, what harm is being done?
I agree that this is often the case- it was the case with me. I had to "re-choose" Christianity in my early adulthood, and kind of break away from the understanding of it I was given in childhood, in fact, break away with the act of believing [i]because[/i] of my childhood. However, a child is entitled to an ethical life, and growing up as a Christian is the way to have one. Keeping religion away from a child because you don't want to influence their decision is a bad idea because
1.) By keeping it away you aren’t letting them be informed enough to make the decision,
2.) You’re letting strangers do the informing, when it’s YOUR responsibility (as a parent, not you as the brother. )
But all other faiths are invalid in the eyes of the people who were doing the teaching. Someone who really DID think that all religions deserved to be taught would invariably be an atheist, and couldn’t do justice to any of them. At least, not at such a young age.
On a related note, what about politics? Do you avoid (and do you wish your parents would avoid) saying things for/against President Bush or whomever in front of the child? It seems to me that the same reasoning would apply.
As always my brother Xunzian with his keen perception.
There is no only way, unless there is only one human mind. I think we can easily dismiss that notion, can’t we?
Also should be leary of those who claim certainty of knowing, who haven’t yet reared a child.
Some here believe, wrongly, you can “force faith” on a child. Everyone must come to things, of their own volition, in their own time. Children are not possessions, they are complete beings, no less so than an adult. Often times, they are wiser than those who rear them.
Anyone is free to dimiss any notion they don’t like. But it doesn’t give their position any more inherent value.
I disagree. Just because you are a “practioner” does not mean that you automatically know what you are doing. And conversely, just because you don’t practice something doesn’t mean that you can’t contribute valuable insight. I have 4 kids but I’m not sure that this automatically gives me much more insight than the young Pensuave who started this thread.
I assume you mean me. But I think I made it quite clear that you can’t “force faith” on a child. But I would still advocate teaching faith at a young age.
Yes, I think I said something similar above. This position does not preclude instructing small children in a particular religious faith. Different issue.
I’m not sure what a discussion of the value of a child adds here. Someone who choses to raise a child in one single faith does not necessarily value their child more or less than someone who choses a different approach. Maybe you think that everyone who doesn’t take your approach to parenthood is by definition a bad parent. But that would seem a very narrow viewpoint to take.
Well now that I’ve gotten my work done and am officially on break till Tuesday, I can reply to the discussion. It seems that we are still having a fine discussion.
Haha, what a great story, indeed! I think that too many people think that if they teach their child a religion, then they are making the child practice that religion. I agree that there is an academic stance that a parent can, and should, take in regards to teaching their children about different faiths. Teaching your children about religion:
educates them on faiths so that they have the ability to choose their own faith.
Teaches them to appreciate other people’s beliefs, which I think is also very important.
I think that learning about different countries’ histories is important because it helps others understand where the country is today and why they are where they are. Similarly, learning about religion helps people better understand those who aren’t the same as them.
This is true, which is why I’m not telling my sister to skip school, or to not go to school, altogether. I respect my parent’s decisions in regards to my sister’s education, however, I am not going to sit back and not discuss with my sister issues which I feel the need to share with her. My parents are much more passive about my sharing of information with her, rather then her not going to the school.
They did a fantastic job in educating you, then. I’m not being sarcastic in that comment, in any way.
I agree that the sources of information are out there, but I don’t think that it should be a child’s burden to go out of their way to educate themselves on religions other than the single faith that they’ve been taught for their life. As was stated, it’s the parent’s responsibility to educate their child in regards to religion, not someone else’s. We obviously disagree on the struggle that is prevalent, but I’m sure that we can agree that it will be easier for children to understand different faiths if it has been taught to them when they were young rather than having to start from scratch when they are older.
I think that if the parent has information readily available, as you seem to be saying, then they should be willing to share that education with their children. Just as one would educate children on history, the study of religion can also help the child to better appreciate others.
You are confusing my suggestion with teaching your children other religions in hopes of making them choose something other than what you believe to be the right path. The value of religious education reaches into a general appreciation for others beliefs. While you may not agree with their path, you can appreciate them as human beings and accept their beliefs as different form yours, right?
I appreciate an exclusive approach to religious instruction, just not at such a young age. I think that if children are educated on an array of religions and faiths, and then chose the faith (or non-faith) that best suits them, then the exclusive approach should apply to further the person’s knowledge of their own faith.
I understand that people should teach their children their faith. But it is still acceptable to teach your children your faith while still teaching them other faiths. Again, your perspective is your perspective, and to impose it upon your children, I would argue isn’t appropriate, just as I wouldn’t impose by beliefs upon you. I think that in order to be fair to your children, you should supply them with enough information to make choices in regards to their faith as well as teach them to appreciate people of other faiths. I’m sure that your faith does say something about accepting other people and appreciating people for who they are. Something about created in God’s image, right?
I did have trouble. Just because I’m confident in my beliefs now doesn’t mean that I didn’t struggle. I think that if it was so easy to reject a faith that has been ingrained into your head then we would see a lot less Christians. Obviously, that isn’t the case. Not many of my friends were excited about attending mass, however, that were in their dormant stage when religion isn’t up there on the scale with partying, school, and social activity. Just because they aren’t thrilled about attending church doesn’t mean that they have rebelled against their faith.
Again, you are assuming that teaching your children other faiths is simply for the goal that they will choose one of those faiths. Being aware of different faiths, in general is beneficial to a child because it allows for them to better understand others.
I’m well aware that people don’t all see things in the same way that I do, however, that doesn’t mean that I’m not allowed to voice my opinions on whether I think they are wrong or not.
So just because people are bombarded with adults opinions as children this means that the trend should continue? If people had that mentality we would probably still have slaves.
Thank you. I don’t find complaining to be successful. I want to be able to completely wrap my head around this concept, and that requires that others challenge my concept.
I think that religion is an intellectual and then emotional exercise. First, I think that education about the faith is necessary and then once a faith is chosen, it is taken to a different level, the level of emotion. I don’t think that young need to be pushed to that level of emotion at such a young age.
I do believe that one chooses religion (when given the opportunity to do so) through education about religion.
I think that it may be tougher in respect to having a lot of information to grapple with; however, I would want my child to wrestle with a good amount of information rather then leave them ignorant to other faiths and practices simply to make it “easier.â€
If choosing religion has to do with coming to grips with human nature then what is the benefit of forcing a religion on your child. It doesn’t skip the step of coming to grips with human nature; it either leaves the child ignorant to other beliefs or it confuses the child when they have to come to terms with human nature.
I’d like a clearer definition of what you mean by “reaction.†I’m not sure that I am properly interpreting this statement.
I agree that the topic of “HOW†to think isn’t an easy one to handle, but I also don’t see how presenting a plethora of topics about religion is less supporting of “HOW†to think than presenting a single religion is. If you are given a lot of information then it should contribute to your ability to experience new data, and seems to resonate with that quote that you supplied.
I’m simply showing her that other vies exist. I don’t think that I’m sculpting her into anything outside of an individual with a wider array of knowledge. I’m not sitting there and telling her that there is no God. When I explain other beliefs to her, I always say that “Other people believe that†in order to promote appreciation for other beliefs.
Well if they do I would claim that they are not allowing their child to think for themselves. I don’t’ think that the Bible is necessary to teach a child ethics. If that was the parent’s choice then I would question their own grasp of ethics. As you’ve mentioned it is difficult to separate God and parents in the case of the parents who use the Bible to teach ethics. If a parent could teach ethics without the need for a specific faith, then the child could make that separation when they were ready.
Well, I would argue that it is rather difficult to avoid religion altogether until you are 30. Most children come into contact with it at a very young age.
Do they really think that they are false due to their own choice, though? I would argue that they don’t. You are having the same problem that Ned was having. If for nothing else, you should teach your child religions other than the one which you practice because it will raise awareness in the child about other cultures and will bring them to more readily appreciate other beliefs.
Also, what you’ve come across on the internet isn’t grounds for making an assumption that the struggle isn’t difficult. It is a very specific audience of people who are teenagers that readily discuss religious beliefs on the internet.
Again, growing up as a Christian doesn’t necessarily lead to an ethical life. That is your opinion on the matter. There are many “Christians†who are rather unethical. Teaching your children about religion isn’t by any means, keeping it away from them. I agree completely with your points as to why it would be back to keep your child away from religious education. I’m am supporting religious education.
So acceptance of other people and their beliefs shouldn’t’ be promoted simply because you don’t believe in what they believe in? I’m not saying accepted in that you accept it into your life and practice it, necessarily. Rather, I’m saying “acceptance†in the sense of appreciating other people who have differing beliefs.
I think that showing both sides is necessary. In my household my mother is Pro-Bush and my father is Anti-Bush, so both sides are already prevalent. Again, as I stated earlier, there are other things which come with education of a child that should be dealt with, however I’m keeping my focus on religion.
True to an extent. But any closed system, thought or otherwise, is likely to fail at a point, because closed, precludes adaptability.
In an open system, more value is attained by continual renewal, and assimilation of usable materials.
Put your ego away Mr. Flanders. You hadn’t even crossed my mind when I made my statement, it was not in any manner directed at your person, and certainly not at the young Pensuave.
Using your logic then, neither then is a Priest or Minister to be taken as an authority, nor any of their institutions … where do you want to go with this statement?
I have four children, composite parenting experience equals to sixty-five years. You’ll pardon me if I don’t take heed from non-parenting neophytes, just my preference you understand.
Again, you assume too much based upon your ego. My statement was made as general qualitative, not pointed in any one direction. Scientifically speaking, faith is an abstract, and abstracts to a child, are unresolvable scenarios. I’ll stick with my assertion, especially as it hasn’t failed me with any of my four children.
Not a different issue. My personal experience is that when you “force” things on a child, it is out of an egocentric need, and does not necessarily represent what is in the best interest of the smaller entity. By “forcing”, my meaning is simple. Taking one particular viewpoint and repeatedly saturating the child’s mind with this one, and in many cases, exlusive ideology. Understanding how a child’s mind works, this is forcing, because these tiny entities prefer to give significance to everything in their environment, not just what the parent egotistically believes to be important.
My comment was based upon the fact that I learned from mistakes I made with the oldest two sons. My attitude when I was younger is that they are “mine” and I’ll do and teach them however the hell I want, because they “belong” to me. It was my error to view them as possessions, not as individual entities. Honestly, I have thanked them for much of their rebellion, because that was the indicator that I was being a dick, not a dad. The mission is not to own and define them, it is to protect and teach.
This is simply one instance of illustrating that in their simplest fashion, they sent a clear message that they were aware of something I failed to pay proper attention to, as a father. Summarily, their wisdom exceeded my ego, and it was a lesson well learned.
How do you know when you've done your job? If you explain all these things to her, and as far as you can tell, she remains a convinced Catholic, is that a sign to you that 'more work needs to be done'? If teaching a child one religion is premature, then teaching them there are hundreds, and that her parents might be full of beans is surely worse. It could be done wrong, it could be done right. But I wouldn't undermine the upbringing her parents want for her.
A 6 year old [i]doesn't[/i] think for themselves- at least, they don't think anything useful about religion. As far as that goes, you're absolutely right- the parents aren't letting the child think for themselves, they are sculpting their child- raising it, in other words.
I'm sure you don't, and I'm sure you would. The question is, why does what you think matter? Christian parents shouldn't raise their children as Christians because some guy on the internet doesn't approve? 1 billion red Chinese don't approve either, but I can't see why that's here or there. I think what's relevant is "Should parents raise their children to have the religious beliefs they think are correct?" I don't mean to sound harsh, but there is a fundamental seperation here- if Christian parents felt the way you do about religion, no doubt they would raise their kids differently. Also I suspect, they would no longer fall under the group "Christian parents".
What you need to do is explain why Christians, who are convinced that Christianity is true and other faiths false, shouldn't raise their children to be Christians themselves. From[i] their [/i]perspective, I can't see any good reason not to.
And why would a parent do that? Because they don’t think the Bible is the best (or only) good source of ethics. And then what would they not be anymore?
Oh, without a doubt. My point is that if the parents don't raise their kids to be Christian, the kids aren't going to be any more open-minded- they'll simply form their ignorant little dogmatic beliefs based on what they see on TV or read in a comic book instead. A person has to live a little to be open-minded, I think.
I didn’t understand the first two sentences in this section. As to the rest, I certainly agree that teaching children about other religions is great- I might teach a child about Islam or Hindu or whatever in the same way that I’d teach them about the Civil War (though 6 may be too young). There’s a difference, though, between teaching them about a religion, it’s customs and beliefs, and teaching them about a religion as though it is an equally valid alternative to the one in which you are trying to raise the child. That’s completely different, and I argue that someone who is convinced that a certain religion is actually true has no good reason (or obligation) to do so.
Well, actually, it’s not my opinion on the matter, there are plenty of people that grew up with a Christian upbringing and turned out to be bad people. However, if the above was my opinion, I would raise my children as such because I could do them no better.
Depends on how you want to define 'acceptance'. Can I teach acceptance of Islam to my child while simultaneously teaching that Islam is false and that my child shouldn't practice it- maybe even that it leads to Hell, if I think that's the case? If not, then I would have to concede- Yes, acceptance of other people's beliefs shouldn't be promoted if they don't believe what I believe in, with that understanding of 'acceptance'.
Look at it this way- we all know that false beliefs shouldn't be promoted. Therefore, beliefs that I [i]think[/i] are false shouldn't be promoted by [i]me[/i]. Like I said above, I can do no better.
Mastriani:
Can you explain to me what an open system is vs. a closed system in this context? It seems to me that when it comes to belief systems, we all have a long list of “This is True…” “This is False…” and “I don’t know…” beliefs. If one person’s set of beliefs is taken from one classic religion, and another person’s set is taken from half a dozen different classic religions, they both have equal potential to be close-minded and stubborn about those beliefs they hold, don’t they? Does an open system just have more “I don’t know…” situations?
[/quote]
An open system is just what it says, open, with ability to continue.
Contrarily, a closed system reaches a point, where essentially, there is no more information to be had, or obtained.
Although in context there is always the possibility that an open system person can be just as stubborn and belief stricken, it would appear less likely in an open system.
Perhaps at the start there are those constant, grey, or as you put it “I don’t know” positions, but then, that is the beauty of the open system, continual searching and learning.
Using myself as an example, there is only one portion of all the faiths that I have studied, that is summarily rejected. Hence, like a number of others noticed here, ethereally shifting through ILP, you tend to draw from a vast number of sources, touching a great many minds from a great many variant tangents.
With closed system people, the tendency is to continually go to the same pot of information, saying the same things continually, not growing, not learning.
Christianity has shown a tremendous ability to “adapt” to different cultures. Hence it started in the middle east and has become a world religion. If you mean “adaptability” in the sense that it has an inability to change it’s core values over time, I would probably agree. But then I would also ask why adaptability is important.
I’ll try. Doing so is a very biblical concept.
I’m not sure I was going anywhere. My point is that having some experience doesn’t make you an expert and having no experience doesn’t exclude you from this discussion.
Preference noted. I didn’t realize that you were planning on taking heed of anything said here by others. I am flattered that you think my opinions are so worthwhile.
Note to self…must control ego…must control ego…
Did you just say “scientifically speaking faith is…” Surely that was a slip of the keyboard? Next you’ll be telling me about intellegent design…
But what if your motivation is slightly different. What if you believe that if your kids don’t find this one true path in life then they will be burned in hell fire for eternity. Is it still an ego trip to bring them up in your faith?
Don’t project you experiences onto everyone else. Just because you feel like you made some mistakes does not mean that everyone else is making the same one.
Thanks but I’m not sure I learned a whole lot from Catholic school except that nuns can be evil and that stealing the communion wine is bad. But maybe that was a good foundation for the rest of my life, who knows…
OK, so what if I am totally frank with my little six year old and teach him that I believe other religions to be a sure path to hell and that they contain demonic doctrines that are inspired by the devil. What if I tell him that most of the people he sees every day going around the neighborhood will burn in endless torment because they do not follow our faith? Do you still think it would be a good idea to instruct him about other religions? And do you think it will be easier or harder for them to play with the other kids in the street? Do you think it will help him appreciate others around him?
Alternatively, what if leave that issue aside for now and I stick to the basics principles of the Christian faith, that Jesus died for us because he loved us, that we should make every effort to love God and love our neighbor as ourself. How is he harmed? And under which method of instruction do you think he would be better off?
I think you are making the assumption that a Christian would see other religions as somehow inherently valuable and that a discussion of them would be simple and beneficial to a child. I think that assumption is incorrect. If I truely believe in an exclusive path to God, I do not see how it will do my kids any good to educate them about why others are on the wrong path. One cannot discuss other religions dispassionately since by definition we have certain beliefs about what others believe. Opening that box before they are older is a much more dangerous path than you realize. Of course, as I’ve already said, if you accept the “all or none have value” approach then you wouldn’t see any problem.
Of course. But I also sincerely belive they are going to hell. I think explaining these things to a small child is likely to do more harm than good
Do you still think that after what I’ve said above?
Every teenager has struggles, and I doubt that you are as confident as you think you are at 19. Every teenager wants to take the societal moulds and smash them or change them. Struggling is part of growing up and it will focus on whatever it can lay it’s hands on.
Despite growth elsewhere Christianity has been declining in the west for decades. It’s very easy to reject, and I do see a lot fewer Christians than my father or grand-father saw.
Voice all you want. I didn’t mean to sound like I was complaining.
We will have no disagreement here, as pertains to the formative years of Christianity. It assimilated a great deal from other faiths and cultures.
Adapability is necessary because humanity changes as it perceives the passage of time and instance. Faith must also be adaptable, or perish, as with all things. It’s understood that you find this offensive.
Fair enough. Then we are just playing semantics over degrees, pointless to go any further with this premise.
No offense Mr. Flanders, you are either confused with regards to my person, or have a terminally negative attitude. Unless one proves themself to be of an utterly useless mind, they should be listened to for possible useful information. Quite at a loss to understand your position here.
This being a primarily logical discussion about premises of faith and it’s application, I see no reason why scientific definitions would be ruled out?
I have never disavowed intelligent design, just believe the theory needs to be more workably empirical. Please notate for me where I have made a contradictory statement, and I will correct myself.
Mr. Flanders, please note your use of language in this passage, address it within the context of the assertions from within this thread, I think you will find the fallacy of your own accord.
If there is only one true path, that manifests a two option creation. Thus, your child(ren) will, regardless of your instruction, choose either of those available options, of their own volition.
Ego again Mr. Flanders. I fail to see any parent who doesn’t make mistakes. I also fail to see where admitting error, on my own part, projects that upon others. Again, if I am incorrectly stating my position, please notate, so that I may self-correct.
I don’t find it offensive at all. I just think it is incorrect.
I guess I find it funny that you would attempt to define faith in scientific terms. Science has no more to say about faith than my old dog has to say about the works of Shakespeare.
Not quite. Christianity holds in balance the concept of predestination and the command from Jesus to evangelize the world and “make” disciples. To sit on our backside and do nothing is a fatalistic position, not a Christian one. Plus instruction of our kids in the Christian faith is our biblical duty, not an option.
There are definitely people like that. I'm not sure how much it relates to the body of work or belief they refer to though. A naturally inquisitive mind would never run out of things to read, or angles to take, even if they limited themselves to one particular denomination of one particular faith.
They come from the basis of the same inductive logic fallacy. Thus, using one to define the other, is by no means a stretch equal to Shakespeare from a canine.
If you require more information on this, it would be best to speak with either Impenitent or someoneisatthedoor. Either of them are far more erudite and precise in their language, with this subject, and better at presenting the information to a learner.
It strikes me with apparentness, that we have no common ground to speak to one another from, so it is best to let the discourse end.
I would like to concur with you here, but it isn’t possible. The likelihood is as I stated, and although the exception must be understood, it is the majority that I was defining.
As I stated to Mr. Flanders, I will end here, common ground is lost.
Next time, I will remember to heed brother tenative’s wise advice, and not speak outside my “clique”, as it were. My failure was predetermined as he stated.
I think you have too high a view of the capabilities of science.
Why do you assume I am a learner on this subject? I would wager that I know more about the scientific method than you do.
I thought you said you had used an “open-system”. I guess that must be an “open system” except if you encounter someone who doesn’t see things exactly the same way as you.
